Our sheep hit by car -we have no public liability insurance

Gilally wrote: »

my husband was moving two of our sheep on the road when a car came around a sharp bend and hit our sheep. I am really worried as we stupidly don't have liability insurance. The car was only slightly damaged on bumper but the owner was very angry. he took our tag number down. I don't mind paying for the small bit of damage that was done but I am afraid he will claim big style. My husband took photos of damage and skid marks on the road. We also took photo he was not currently taxed or displaying an insurance disk.

Any advise?

Gilally wrote: »

Any advise?

Gilally wrote: »

The man didn't swap details he just drove off so hopefully won't pursue.

Hunter Mahan wrote: »

Unfortunately if you park a vehicle across a road blocking it then you would be in serious trouble if someone drove straight into it. Easy money for them.

mathepac wrote: »

It also suggests to me that there was no-one ahead of the livestock to warn on-coming traffic.

Your point is conjecture, mine is fact based on the OP.
Good joke, but if they're your cattle and broke out, who's responsibility is it? Also if some mad hoor want's to move cattle at mid-night on winter's night who's responsible then?

In the Northern Ireland case of Hall v. Wightman the plaintiff's motor car collided with the defendant's dark brown heifer which had strayed from the defendant's field through another field onto the highway. The accident
occurred after midnight and it was found as a fact there was no negligence in the driving of the car. Although there were 7 cattle near the accident it was admitted by the parties that they were not causing an obstruction at the time of the accident. The court held that there is no obligation on the owner of land adjoining the highway to fence his lands in such a manner as to keep his animals from straying onto the highway and there being neither negligence nor nuisance on his part the defendant was not liable. The court, however, expressly declared that the matter might have been different if a lot of cattle were causing an obstruction on the highway at the time of the accident, as was the case in Cunningham v. Whelan. Cunningham v. Whelan was, therefore, approved but distinguished.

Concerning injuries caused by animals which stray onto the highway the law is different. Normally speaking no liability attaches to the owner of such animals simply because he has allowed them to escape from his land. There is no obligation in such circumstances to fence one's land and to keep one's domestic animals in. Moreover, the orthodox view also states that road users in such circumstances voluntarily accept the normal risks associated with highways including the possibility that animals will be present on the highway.

The rule although found in earlier common law is usually referred to as the rule in Searle v. Wallbank173. Since the decision in this case has come in for some severe criticism in recent years the facts ought to be recited.

The plaintiff was injured when at 1.30 a.m. on 1 April 1944 the bicycle which he was riding collided with the defendant's horse on a public highway. The plaintiff's front light was masked in accordance with war-time regulations at the time of the accident. The field in which the horse was kept, with other animals, adjoined the highway and the horse escaped because of a defective fence. The House of Lords in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal held that the owner of a field adjoining the highway is under no prima facie legal obligation to users of the highway so to keep and maintain his hedges and gates along the highway as to prevent his animals from straying onto it. Nor is he under any duty to users of the highway to take reasonable care to prevent any of his animals, not known to be dangerous, from straying onto the highway.

The general principle stated in Searle v. Wallbank has been accepted in Ireland in the following cases: Gibb v. Comerford; Dunphy v. Bryan; Cunningham v. Whelan; and in Northern Ireland in Hall v. Wightman.
In Gibb v. Comerford, Maguire P., cited with approval the following dictum from Heath's Garage, Ltd. v. Hodges as being a proper statement of the law.

“In my opinion the experience of centuries has shown that the presence of domestic animals upon the highway is not inconsistant with the reasonable
safety of the public using the road. I am unable to draw any distinction in this regard between domestic animals. I think horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, fowl and dogs all fall into the same category for this purpose.... The prima facie harmlessness of domestic animals as frequenters of the highway is, I think, established as a legal doctrine.”

Although it is clear, therefore, from Searle v. Wallbank, that the owner cannot in general be sued for injuries caused by his animals straying on the highway, the question still remains as to what is the position in relation to the plea of contributory negligence if the owner of the animal brings an action against the road user for wrongfully injuring his animal.

In the context of a Searle v. Wallbank type accident, therefore, this interpretation would mean that although the conduct of the farmer in permitting his cattle to stray is not actionable (Searle v. Wallbank) it may still amount to “want of care” for the purpose of §34 of the Civil LiabilityAct 1961. It would, on this interpretation, constitute a partial or total defence under the section. A consequence of this, of course, is that the farmer may by his “want of care” be found 100% to blame for the accident and recover nothing for the loss of the animal.

By way of summary, therefore, the following tentative proposals for reform are suggested.

1.

The existing immunity of the owner of straying cattle for damage caused on the highway should be abolished.

2.

The owner of an animal which causes injury should be made liable on principles of strict liability irrespective of fault. Two exceptions should be made in such a system of liability: first, the defence of Act of God should be available to the defendant and second, in determining the rights of a trespasser who is injured by an animal ordinary negligence principles should apply. In all such cases, however, the plaintiff's own fault should also be a ground for reducing the damages awarded.

3.

The adoption of such a strict system would mean that the rules of scienter, cattle trespass and dogs worrying cattle, could be abolished as they would be absorbed by the new system.

farmer_dave wrote: »

If the vehicle is stationary then it might not be as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The situation suggests that the 'someone' was driving too fast to react to an obstacle in the road. Blocking the road is another matter.

Also, can someone correct me on this. I was under the assumption that farmers were responsible for animals on the road during hours of daylight, but during the hours of darkness it becomes a grey area.